Marvin L. Barmes and Barbara J. Barmes - Page 10

                                       - 10 -                                         
          drawn from such individual’s failure to do so, see id. at 621-              
          622.  Petitioners’ reliance on Boyd is misplaced.  That case                
          involved the requested production of certain private books and              
          papers of the claimants in the context of a forfeiture action by            
          the United States.  See id. at 622, 624.  The United States                 
          Supreme Court (Supreme Court) held that both the Fourth Amendment           
          and the Fifth Amendment prohibited the production of those                  
          private items in a forfeiture proceeding.6  See id. at 634-635.             
               In the instant case, the requested trust documents are not             
          the private books and papers of petitioners.  Rather, they are              
          the documents of Sandbar Wholesale Trust and/or Sandbar Real                

               6Although the Supreme Court acknowledged that a forfeiture             
          suit by the United States was technically a civil proceeding, it            
          characterized such an action as “in substance and effect a                  
          criminal one”.  Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 634 (1886).            
          The Supreme Court stated with respect to such suits:                        
               we think that they are within the reason of criminal                   
               proceedings for all the purposes of the Fourth Amend-                  
               ment of the Constitution, and of that portion of the                   
               Fifth Amendment which declares that no person shall be                 
               compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against                 
               himself; and we are further of [the] opinion that a                    
               compulsory production of the private books and papers                  
               of the owner of goods sought to be forfeited in such a                 
               suit is compelling him to be a witness against himself,                
               within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment to the Con-                  
               stitution, and is the equivalent of a search and                       
               seizure--and an unreasonable search and seizure--within                
               the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. * * *                             
          Id. at 634-635.  In contrast to the forfeiture action considered            
          by the Supreme Court in Boyd, the instant case is a civil pro-              
          ceeding and may not in any way be characterized as criminal in              

Page:  Previous  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011